Boeing Aircraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 630 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY and ASSOCIATION OF
AIRCRAFT SUPERVISORS OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Case No. R-4233.-Decided November 17, 1942
Jurisdiction : aircraft manufacturing industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit within
the scope of the petition-unit composed-of general foremen, foremen, and
assistant foremen, held inappropriate.
Mr. E. R. Perry , Mr. P. P. Ogden,, and Mr. Paul Fredrickson, of
Seattle, Wash., for the Company.
Chadwick , Chadwick i, Mills, by Mr. Stephen F. Chadwick, Mr.
George James, Mr. Roy Farrell, Mr.*Lynn Morrell , and Mr. Willard
H. Schultz , of Seattle , Wash., for the Association.
Mr. L. Presley Gill, Mr. H. J. Gibson, Mr . William J. Muirhead,
Mr. Gary Cotton , of Seattle , Wash., and Mr . James A. Duncan, of
Washington, D. C., for Lodge 751.
Mr. Louis A . Pontello , Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEbIENr OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Association of Aircraft Supervisors
of Seattle, Washington, herein called the Association, alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Boeing Aircraft Company, Seattle, Washington,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing and for a further hearing upon
due notice before William A. Babcock, Jr., Trial Examiner. Said
hearings were held at Seattle, Washington, on August 31, 1942, and
September 14, 1942. The Company, the Association, and Aeronauti-
cal Industrial District Lodge ,No. 751, of the International Associa-
tion of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called Lodge 751, appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
45 N. L R B., No. 95'
630
BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY 631
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the original
hearing, Lodge 751 moved that the petition be dismissed on the
grounds (1) that the Association is not a labor organization within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and (2) that the
unit. sought by,the petitioner is not an,appropriate unit since it con-
sists of a group of management employees. The Trial Examiner
referred the motion to the Board. For the reasons which appear in
Section III below, Lodge 751's motion to dismiss on the ground the
proposed unit is not appropriate for bargaining is granted. The
Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Association and Lodge
751 filed briefs which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Boeing Aircraft Company is a Washington corporation engaged in
the manufacture of aircraft. It owns and operates three plants in
Seattle, Washington, and one plant at Renton, Washington, which
are the plants involved in this proceeding. The Company annually
purchases and ships to its plants in the State of Washington from
points outside the State, raw materials, supplies, machinery, and equip-
ment valued in excess of $100,000. It manufactures products having a
value in excess of $100,000 annually, which are shipped to points out-
side of the State of Washington.
The Company admits it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
H. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Association of Aircraft Supervisors of Seattle, Washington, is an
unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, of the International
Association of Machinists, is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of,Labor, admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Association urges that all general foremen, foremen, and as-
sistant foremen in the factory divisions of the Company in both its
Seattle and Renton plants, as well as comparable supervisory personnel
in certain departments, but excluding executives, administrative as-
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sistants, and supervisory employees of higher rank than general fore-
men, constitute an appropriate unit. Lodge 751 contends that such a
unit is inappropriate. The Company takes no position with respect
to, the unit.
The supervisory employees in the factory divisions are generally
classified in rank as-general- foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen.
The supervisory employees in the office divisions are called supervisors
and assistant supervisors; they have powers and duties similar to the
supervisory employees in the factory divisions. In the discussion
which follows, reference to supervisors in the factory divisions will
include supervisors in the office divisions.
Except in some of the small shops or departments, there is a general
foreman and several foremen and assistant foremen. A general fore-
man has general supervision of all employees of a shop on all ,the
shifts. He has the power to recommend, wage increases and promo-
tions for all employees, and he may also discharge all supervisory or
non-supervisory employees in the shop. He has the power to overrule
any action taken by a foreman or assistant foreman under him.
A foreman usually has charge of an entire shop on_ one of the shifts,
but he is responsible to the general foreman for production and man-
agement of the shop. He supervises the work of the assistant fore-
men under him. An assistant foreman is in charge of a portion of
a shop during one shift, and he is responsible to the foreman for its
management. Although 'the assistant foremen may perform certain
managerial acts, such as the discharging of'employees, these acts are
subject to the approval of supervisory employees of higher rank.
Freedom of action on part of the assistant foreman depends largely
upon his experience and the nature of the relationship between him
and his foreman. Each supervisory rank has meetings which are
only attended by supervisors of such rank. The assistant foremen do
not usually attend the meetings of the foremen nor do the foremen
attend the meetings of the general foremen.
Under all these, circumstances, we are' of the opinion, and find,
that the various levels of supervisory employees of the' Company
cannot appropriately be grouped, as the Association contends, in a
single unit. The general foremen exercise a substantial degree of
supervision over foremen and assistant foremen, while the assistant
foremen are subject to both the foremen and general foremen. We
find that the unit proposed by the Association is not appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.' -
' See Matter of Stanley Company of America , et at. and United Office & Professional
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , Case No.
R-4244, decided this day, 45 N. L. R. B. 625.
1
BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY 633 ,
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as found in Section III above, the bargaining unit sought
to be established by the petition is inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, we find that no question has arisen concerning
the representation of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and the entire record
in the case, the Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of Boeing Aircraft.
Company, of Seattle, Washington, filed by Association of Aircraft
Supervisors of Seattle, Washington, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring specially :
I concur in the dismissal of the petition, since I believe that my
observations in Stanley Company of America, Case No. R-4244,'de--
cided this day, apply with equal force to the instant case.
t